Lacan’s Four (or Five) Discourses (beware, all ye who enter here!)

Jacan Lacques (1901-1981)

For Lacan, language is intersubjective (speech always implies a speaker and someone spoken to) and forms & transforms us as subjects intrasubjectively/psychologically, intersubjectively/socially and extrasubjectively/environmentally (speech is how we relate to ourselves, each other and the world, i.e., acts are speech acts).

What I’m trying to articulate is that what dominates [society] is the practice of language. (Lacan 2007: 239)

Hence, he uses the term discourse (after ’68) for the four possible modes of intersubjective relations (the theory of discourses is his response to the Marxism of the ’68ers). Discourse determines the thought, affect, enjoyment, meaning and identity of the subject.

[I]t is on discourse that every determination of the subject depends. (178)

Thus, changes in discourse can produce changes in intra-, inter- and extrasubjective “reality.”

Francis Bacon, Self-Portrait (1971)

The terms and positions

  1. $ the barred subject [sujet], hence also the symptom (≠ the ego = the Id: das Es) → alienation
  2. S1 the master-signifier [signifiant-maitre], itself empty but an “anchoring point” (point de capiton, lit. “upholstery button”) around which other signifiers can stabilize, halting the endless play of signifiers by organizing affect and knowledge, thus deferring desire (e.g., the commodity in capitalism), a.k.a. Truth, norms → values
  3. S2 the system of know-how and knowledge (savoir), a.k.a. the “battery of signifiers,” structured syntagmatically (by metonymy/displacement) and paradigmatically (by metaphor/substitution) → belief
  4. a the object of desire [objet petit a] as the surplus/excess (plus-de-jouir/Mehrlust, cf. Marx’s Mehrwert: surplus value) → enjoyment (jouissance)

The terms always appear in this order on the square or “quadripode”: subject → master-signifier → knowledge → object. They shift relative to four positions: the agent (what is dominant), truth (its condition of possibility), the other (what is called into action by the agent) and the product (what is produced as a result):

(The left-hand positions represent the subject speaking; the right-hand positions, what is to be assumed by the subject spoken to. The top positions are manifest; the bottom positions, latent.)

This grid borrows from the medieval logic of statements, viz., term → opposite → negation → negation of the negation (sameness → alterity → difference → identity):

It also resembles Greimas’s semiotic square:

The structure of the discourses

The combination of terms and positions generates the four algorithms of the “universe of mastery,” all derived from the discourse of the master (note that the discourse of the university, for example, does not just apply to the university as a social institution):

  1. the discourse of the master (governing/policing): the master-signifier is master and represents the subject for all other signifiers; knowledge is put to work, but representing knowledge as a whole (i.e., an object) is impossible (i.e., the object a remains);
  2. the discourse of the university (teaching/encoding): knowledge is master (nowadays, science and technology) and represents the master-signifier; the object is put to work, i.e., domesticated (as “objectivity”), representing the subject as powerless;
  3. the discourse of the hysteric (desiring/questioning or resisting): the subject is master and represents the object; the master-signifier is put to work, representing knowledge as powerless; and
  4. the discourse of the analyst (healing/revolutionizing): the object (and thus the analyst as object of the analysand’s desire) represents knowledge (unlike medicine, psychoanalysis does not use knowledge to cure a symptom); the subject is put to work, but representing a whole subject is impossible.

To take literary reading as an example,

  1. the masterful reader tries to read everything (S2) the same way;
  2. the hysterical reader reads for the key (S1) to the text;
  3. the universalist reader reads “objectively” (a); and
  4. the analytical reader reads symptomatically ($).

There are different versions of each discourse. Taking mastery, there is

  1. the philosopher’s mastery, which erases the subject in favour of knowledge and represses truth;
  2. the capitalist’s, which demands efficiency without knowing why; and
  3. the physician’s, which uses knowledge to cure a symptom.

There are political relationships between discourses: the university discourse is often slave to the master, insofar as the university serves the master’s discourse of the day: once the university served the Church, then the Nation, now the Market.

Lacan also hinted that there might be a fifth discourse — an alternate universe, even — that of the capitalist, which is not derived from the universe of mastery (cf. Bryant on the Universe of Capitalism). (Any number of combinations other than those of the universe of mastery are possible if we allow the order of the terms in the quadripode to change.)

The position of the agent is occupied by the subject as consumer, who does not address the Other, but the truth, i.e., the Market as master signifier. Through the Market, the subject can ask knowledge, i.e. science and technology, to produce objects to be consumed, i.e. commodities, that can never completely fulfil the subject’s desire.



7 thoughts on “Lacan’s Four (or Five) Discourses (beware, all ye who enter here!)

  1. Pingback: Lacan’s Four (Or Five) Discourses (Beware, All Ye Who Enter Here …
  2. Regading the diagram of “capitalist discourse”, I find it interesting that you did stick with Lacan’s original drawing, where the arrow from $ points down to S1. In another paper (Levi Bryant: “Zizek’s new universe of discourse”) Bryant declares it a mere slip of the pen (yeah..), an oversight.

    But if the arrow points down ($ addresses it’s foreclosed truth or something) I think the agent already presupposes that its own S1 is not at all encompassing. At first view that even might be a friendly feature of self-criticsm. Unlike Levy Bryant I could then assume that this “capitalist discourse” diagram does NOT necessarily open a new “discourse universe” (although such a second universe might very well exist today).

    No, what if this “capitalist discourse” is really a mutation of the master discourse, in the sense that the $ “is not addressing the other anymore” : since the $ is adressing the S1 now and since its aim (the capitalist’s) is to minimze (foreclose) unproductive waste (‘a’) .. isn’t it that the discourse must mutate into the discourse of the hysteric .. ?

    So what Lacan has drawn up as `capitalist discourse’ couldn’t it be the exact moment where the ‘master’ turns ‘hysteric’ ( the reality of the *market* as S1 forces him ..) ? I therefore propose that the capitalist mode is a more or less high-speed *oscillation* between master and hysteric.

    Secondly, I propose that another discourse takes care of the ‘waste’ (a) produced, while at the same time be open to a master’s adresses: that is naturally the scientist’s ‘university discourse’, it addresses ‘a’ with objective precision. And further, the university discourse produces ‘$’, exactly the agent of Lacan’s ‘capitalist discourse’.

    So the thesis would be, that through this switching operation of ‘capitalist discourse’ (the “self-criticial master”) , the three discourses master/hysteric/university make up a wonderful self-propelling machine

    • I find this explanation worrisome. “while at the same time be open to a master’s adresses: that is naturally the scientist’s ‘university discourse’, it addresses ‘a’ with objective precision. And further, the university discourse produces ‘$’, exactly the agent of Lacan’s ‘capitalist discourse’.” isn’t that precisely the so called objectification of the Subject in the name of the institution to produce the waste $? speaking in analytic or Freudian terms?

  3. there is a another explanation:

    Let’s conceive the S1/$ reversal as that what Zizek terms ‘super-ego injunction to enjoy’

    If one sticks to Lacan’s formula, the S1 in the place of truth contradicts S2 : this contradiction – can’t this be “resolved” .. by the art of programming / ‘hacking’ ?

    As computer science tells us “for every formal language there is a equivalent Turing Machine which implements it” .. which means no matter how symptomatic a formal construction is it can “be done”.

    So the ‘hacked’ S2 is the capitalist’s searched-for product, manifests itself in the form of intelligent devices or social networks, whatever, and its waste (‘a’) radiates surplus-enjoyment which appears to come directly from the core ($) (note the metonymical here: dual core/quadcore/hexacore you get the point) which allows for ‘interpassive’ anoymous identification.

  4. Pingback: Spectral Discourse « Speculative Non-Buddhism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s